Search Results

Search found 2166 results on 87 pages for 'license'.

Page 2/87 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Can I remove all-caps and shorten the disclaimer on my License?

    - by stefano palazzo
    I am using the MIT License for a particular piece of code. Now, this license has a big disclaimer in all-caps: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF... ... I've seen a normally capitalised disclaimer on the zlib license (notice that it is above the license text), and even software with no disclaimer at all (which implies, i take it, that there is indeed a guarantee?), but i'd like some sourced advice by a trusted party. I just haven't found any. GNU's License notice for other files comes with this disclaimer: This file is offered as-is, without any warranty. Short and simple. My question therefore: Are there any trusted sources indicating that a short rather than long, and a normally spelled rather than capitalised disclaimer (or even one or the other) are safely usable in all of the jurisdictions I should be concerned with? If the answer turns out to be yes: Why not simply use the short license notice that the fsf proposes for readme-files and short help documents instead of the MIT License? Is there any evidence suggesting this short 'license' will not hold up? For the purposes of this question, the software is released in the European Union, should it make any difference.

    Read the article

  • How to check if the license on the server is a TechNet License

    - by user28471
    I have a server machine with Windows 2008 Web Server running on it and I THINK I have been running it under the TechNet license. Now I need to turn it into a production server and I need to find out if I really am running it under a TechNet license so that I can upgrade it. But I can't seem to be able to check which license I am running the OS under. Is there a way to check this?

    Read the article

  • Cryptographic Validation Explained

    - by MarkPearl
    We have been using LogicNP’s CryptoLicensing for some of our software and I was battling to understand how exactly the whole process worked. I was sent the following document which really helped explain it – so if you ever use the same tool it is well worth a read. Licensing Basics LogicNP CryptoLicensing For .Net is the most advanced and state-of-the art licensing and copy protection system you can use for your software. LogicNP CryptoLicensing System uses the latest cryptographic technology to generate and validate licenses. The cryptographic algorithm used is the RSA algorithm which consists of a pair of keys called as the generation key and the validation key. Data encrypted using the generation key can only be decrypted using the corresponding validation key. How does cryptographic validation work? When a new license project is created, a unique validation-generation key pair is created for the project. When LogicNP CryptoLicensing For .Net generates licenses, it encrypts the license settings using the generation key. The validation key can be safely distributed with your software and is used during validation. During license validation, LogicNP CryptoLicensing For .Net attempts to decrypt the encrypted license code using the validation key. If the decryption is successful, this means that the data was encrypted using the generation key, since only the corresponding validation key can decrypt data encrypted with the generation key. This further means that not only is the license valid but that it was generated by you and only you since nobody else has access to the generation key. Generation Key This key is used by CryptoLicensing Generator to generate encrypted license codes. This key is stored in the license project file, so the license project file must be kept secure and confidential and must be accorded the same care as any other critical asset such as source code. Validation Key This key is used for validating generated license codes. It is the same key displayed in the 'Get Validation Key And Code' dialog (Ctrl+K) and is used by your software when validating license codes (using LogicNP.CryptoLicensing.dll). Unlike the generation key, it is not necessary to keep this key secure and confidential. Note that the generation key pair is stored in the project file created by LogicNP CryptoLicensing For .Net, so it is very important to backup this file and to keep it secure. Once the file is lost, it is not possible to retrieve the key pair. FAQ Do I use the same validation key to validate all license codes? Yes, the validation key (and generation key) for the project remains the same; you use the same key to validate all license codes generated using the project. You can retrieve the validation key using the "Project" menu --> "Get Validation Key & Code" menu item. Can license codes generated using generation key from one project be validated using validation key of another project? No! Q. Is every generated license code unique? A. Yes, every license code generated by CryptoLicensing is guaranteed to be unique, even if you generate thousands of codes at a time. Q. What makes CryptoLicensing so secure? A. CryptoLicensing uses the latest cryptographic technology to generate and validate licenses. The cryptographic algorithm used is the RSA asymmetric key algorithm which can use upto 3072-bit keys. Given current computing power, it takes years to break a 3072-bit key. Q. Is is possible for a hacker to develop a keygen for my software? A. Impossible. The cryptographic algorithm used by CryptoLicensing consists of a pair of keys called as the generation key and the validation key. Data encrypted with one key can only be decrypted by the other key and vice versa. Licenses are generated using the generation key and validated using the validation key. Without the generation key, it is impossible to generate valid licenses. Q. What is the difference between validation key and generation key? Generation Key This key is used by CryptoLicensing Generator to generate encrypted license codes. This key is stored in the license project file, so the license project file must be kept secure and confidential and must be accorded the same care as any other critical asset such as source code. Validation Key This key is used for validating generated license codes. It is the same key displayed in the 'Get Validation Key And Code' dialog (Ctrl+K) and is used by your software when validating license codes (using LogicNP.CryptoLicensing.dll). Unlike the generation key, it is not necessary to keep this key secure and confidential. Q. Do I have to include the license project file (.licproj) with my software? A. No!!! This goes against the very essence of the security of the asymmetric cryptographic scheme because the project file contains both the validation and generation key. With your software, you only need to include the validation key which will be used to validate licenses generated by CryptoLicensing using the generation key. The license project file should be treated as any other valuable and confidential asset such as your source code. Q. Does the license service need the license project file? A. Yes. The license project file is needed whenever new licenses are generated (via the UI, via the API or via the license service). As just one example, the license service generates new machine-locked licenses when activated licenses are presented to it for activation, therefore the license service needs the license project file. Q. Is it possible to embed my own data in the generated licenses? A. Yes. You can embed any amount of additional data in the licenses. This data will have the same amount of security as the license code itself and will be tamper-proof. The embedded user data can be retrieved from your software. Q. What additional steps can I take to ensure that my software does not get cracked? A. There are many methods and techniques which can make it extremely difficult for a hacker to crack your software. See Writing Effective License Checking Code And Designing Effective Licenses for more information. Q. Why is the license service not working? A. The most common cause is not setting the CryptoLicense.LicenseServiceURL property before trying to validate a license. Make sure that this property is set to the correct URL where your license service is hosted. The most common cause after this is that the license project file on the web server where your license service is hosted is not the latest. This happens if you make changes to the license project (for example, set the 'Enable With Serials' setting for a profile), but don't upload the updated project file to your web server. Q. Why are my serials not working? Serial codes require the user of a license service. See Using Serial Codes for more details. Also see the earlier question 'Why is the license service not working?' Q. Is the same validation key used to validate license codes generated from different profiles. A. Yes. Profiles are just pre specified license settings for quickly generating licenses having those settings. The actual license code is still generated using the license project's cryptographic generation key and thus, can be validated using the project's validation key. Q. Why are changes made to a profile not getting saved? A. Simply changing license settings via UI and saving the license project does not save those license settings to the active profile. You must first save the license settings to a profile using the Save/Save As command from the Profiles menu (see above). Q. Why is validation of activated licenses failing from CryptoLicensing Generator, but works from my software? A. Make sure that you have specified the URL of the license service using the Project Properties Dialog. Also see the earlier question 'Why is the license service not working?' Q. How can I extend the trial period of my customer? A. To extend the evaluation period of the customer, simply send him a new license code specifying the desired evaluation limits. Evaluation information such as the current used days, executions, etc are stored in garbled form in a registry location which is derived from the license code. Therefore, when a new license code is used, the old evaluation information will not be used and a new evaluation period will be started.

    Read the article

  • What's the best license for my website?

    - by John Maxim
    I have developed a unique website but do not have a lot of fund to protect it with trademark or patents. I'm looking for suggestions so that when my supervisor gets my codes, some laws restrict anyone from copying it and claim their work. I'm in the middle of thinking, making the application a commercial one or never allowing it to be copied at all. What kind of steps am I required to take in order to make full measurements so my applications are fully-protected? I've come across a few, one under my consideration is MIT license. Some say we can have a mixture of both commercial and MIT. I would also like to be able to distribute some functions so it can be modified by others but I'd still retain the ownership. Last but not least, it's confusing when I think of protecting the whole website, and protecting codes by codes in division. How should we go about this? Thanks. N.B I have to pass it over to the supervisor as this is a Uni project. I need this to be done within 2 weeks. So time to get my App protected is a factor here.

    Read the article

  • Rewriting code under BSD license

    - by Frank
    I am currently studding OpengGL with OpenGL Supebible 5th edition. I've found interested for me some C++ code that is distributed with the book (see also on google code). That code is under New BSD License. I am writing my software on C# with SharpGL wrapper and I'd like to know following things: Can I rewrite that C++ to C#? edid: I'am interesting in using such things like GLBatch, GLShaderManager and some other thing from GLTools. Problem is that library is on C++, but I use C#. How do I have to mark my source code if I put it somewhere like to my github account? What disclaimer should be? Original disclaimer looks like: /* GLShaderManager.h Copyright (c) 2009, Richard S. Wright Jr. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Neither the name of Richard S. Wright Jr. nor the names of other contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. */ Edit: Should my copyright looks like after rewriting something like that? Copyright (c) 2014, My Name Copyright (c) 2009, Richard S. Wright Jr. All rights reserved. Redistribution...................

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Public License Question

    - by ryanzec
    Let preface this by saying that I understand that any advice I may receive is not to be taken as 100% correct, I am just looking for what people's understand of what this license is. I have been looking for a library that allow be to deal with archived compressed files (like zip files) and so far the best one I have found is DotNetZip. The only concern I have is that I am not familiar with the Microsoft Public License. While I plan to release a portion of my project (a web application platform) freely (MIT/BSD style) there are a few things. One is that I don't plan on actually releasing the source code, just the compiled project. Another thing is that I don't plan on releasing everything freely, only a subset of the application. Those are reason why I stay away form (L)GPL code. Is this something allowed while using 3rd party libraries that are licensed under the Microsoft Public License? EDIT The part about the Microsoft license that concerns me is Section 3 (D) which says (full license here): If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license. I don't know what is meant by 'software'. My assumption would be that 'software' only refers to the library included under the license (being DotNetZip) and that is doesn't extends over to my code which includes the DotNetZip library. If that is the case then everything is fine as I have no issues keeping the license for DotNetZip when release this project in compiled form while having my code under its own license. If 'software' also include my code that include the DotNetZip library then that would be an issue (as it would basically act like GPL with the copyleft sense).

    Read the article

  • Question about the no-endorsment clause on the BSD license

    - by Earlz
    I'm developing a non-free library and I want to use Bcrypt.Net in it. The clause in question: Neither the name of BCrypt.Net nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. To what extent does this mean I can't use the name of Bcrypt.Net? For instance, could I say "the only ASP.Net authentication library capable of using Bcrypt" or can I even include "supports Bcrypt for password hashing" in promotional materials? Note: I do not actually modify any of Bcrypt.Net's code

    Read the article

  • License for website article

    - by queueoverflow
    On my personal website, I have some technical ideas and some source code snippets that I share with everybody. To make it clean that everyone can use those snippets as they like, as long as I do not have to provide any warranty, I would like to add a license to the some of the texts. The bigger programs come with GPLv2+, which I think is a reasonable license for free code. Does it make sense to use the MIT License or the GNU Free Documentation License for these texts or should I just go with CC-BY? I am a German citizen, so I heard that the American licenses do not really apply to me at all. If so, that would be another advantage for the Creative Commons Family of License.

    Read the article

  • License Requirements for Including Dual-Licensed Open-Source Software

    - by Rick Roth
    How do you opt into one software license and not the other when the distributor gives the consumer more than one choice? For example I would like to use the DataTables JavaScript library in my web application. According to their web site, "DataTables is dual licensed under the GPL v2 license or a BSD (3-point) license." Furthermore, the source code of the JavaScript library has this text that calls out both licenses: /** * @summary DataTables * @description Paginate, search and sort HTML tables * @version 1.9.4 * @file jquery.dataTables.js * @author Allan Jardine (www.sprymedia.co.uk) * @contact www.sprymedia.co.uk/contact * * @copyright Copyright 2008-2012 Allan Jardine, all rights reserved. * * This source file is free software, under either the GPL v2 license or a * BSD style license, available at: * http://datatables.net/license_gpl2 * http://datatables.net/license_bsd * * This source file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY * or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the license files for details. * * For details please refer to: http://www.datatables.net */ Finally, the web pages with the licensing text (e.g. the DataTables BSD license page) has this statement: "DataTables is made available under both the GPL v2 license and a BSD (3-point) style license. You can select which one you wish to use the DataTables code under." My specific question is "how do you select which one you want to use." In my case, I want to only use the BSD license and I want to make it explicitly clear that I do not opt into the GPL v2 license in any way. How do you do that and have it hold up to legal challenge?

    Read the article

  • Publishing an open source project as a public repository and applying a license

    - by Anton
    If I publish my project now, with added license information, will the license still apply to the project if one goes back a few commits in the history to a state where I hadn't yet added any license information? [Relevant answer][1] [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2468566/correctly-applying-an-open-source-license/2468663#2468663 Relevant answer This suggests that unless there is some license information available, no rights are granted. Is that true in this case too? Or will the license I added in the last commit also apply to older commits?

    Read the article

  • My new anti-patent BSD-based license: necessary and effective? [closed]

    - by paperjam
    I am writing multimedia software in a domain that is rife with software patents. I want to open source my software but only for the benefit of those who don't play the patent game, that is enthusiasts, small companies, research projects, etc. The idea is, if my code would infringe a software patent somewhere and a company pays to license that patent, they then lose the right to use and distribute my software. Now I detest license proliferation as much as anyone but I can't find an existing OSI approved license that does this. The GPL comes close, but it only restricts distribution, not use. I want to stop someone using my software should they obtain a patent license to do so. Does another license do this job? Is the wording below unambiguous? - I don't want a legal opinion, just whether it would be interpreted as I intend. Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder> All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: [ three standard new-BSD conditions not shown here] * No patents are licensed from any third party in respect of redistribution or use of this software or its derivatives unless the patent license is arranged to permit free use and distribution by all. THIS SOFTWARE IS... [standard BSD disclaimer not shown here]

    Read the article

  • MIT vs. BSD vs. Dual License

    - by ryanve
    My understanding is that: MIT-licensed projects can be used/redistributed in BSD-licensed projects. BSD-licensed projects can be used/redistributed in MIT-licensed projects. The MIT and the BSD 2-clause licenses are essentially identical. BSD 3-clause = BSD 2-clause + the "no endorsement" clause Issuing a dual license allows users to choose from those licenses—not be bound to both. If all of the above is correct, then what is the point of using a dual MIT/BSD license? Even if the BSD refers to the 3-clause version, then can't a user legally choose to only abide by the MIT license? It seems that if you really want the "no endorsement" clause to apply then you have to license it as just BSD (not dual). If you don't care about the "no endorsement" clause, then MIT alone is sufficient and MIT/BSD is redundant. Similarly, since the MIT and BSD licenses are both "GPL-compatible" and can be redistributed in GPL-licensed projects, then dual licensing MIT/GPL also seems redundant.

    Read the article

  • MSSQL 2008 License for both Web application and desktop application

    - by Bayonian
    I have ASP.NET web application using MSSQL express at the moment. But I want to use MSSQL 2008. But I'm NOT sure about what kind of license I should buy. I'm considering the Processor License according to this document. I'm not sure if it's the right choice. If I buy User CAL. should I buy only 1 CAL for my web application? or for all visitors who visit my web site? I also have a Windows desktop application that write/read data from the server. Do I need a seperate license with for this Windows application if I buy Processor License. Thank you for suggestion.

    Read the article

  • MSSQL 2008 License for both Web application and desktop application [closed]

    - by Angkor Wat
    I have ASP.NET web application using MSSQL express at the moment. But I want to use MSSQL 2008. But I'm NOT sure about what kind of license I should buy. I'm considering the Processor License according to this document. I'm not sure if it's the right choice. If I buy User CAL. should I buy only 1 CAL for my web application? or for all visitors who visit my web site? I also have a Windows desktop application that write/read data from the server. Do I need a seperate license with for this Windows application if I buy Processor License. Thank you for suggestion.

    Read the article

  • pix 501 encryption license reduces inside hosts to 10

    - by user7764
    Hi I have an unlimted pix 501 with no encryption license installed. I have applied for and received a 3DES license. When I install the 3DES license, the inside hosts goes from unlimited to 10. Thankfully I had the presence of mind to keep a note of the old activation key. Is this normal behaviour? I would have thought not as I bought the pix as unlimited. Thanks Cammy

    Read the article

  • Recover license for Photoshop CS3

    - by Buddy
    At the company I work at, an employee was let go. His laptop was a company laptop with Photoshop CS3 installed on it. Photoshop was deactivated so it could be installed on another computer. The license was bought online and emailed to someone, however, that computer crashed and the email with the license is lost. Is there a way to recover the license from the laptop? Are we better off contacting Adobe's customer support?

    Read the article

  • Unicode license

    - by Eric Grange
    Unicode Terms of use (http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html) state that any software that uses their data files (or a modification of it) should carry the Unicode license references. It seems to me that most Unicode libraries have functions to check if a character is a digit, a letter, a symbol, etc. ans so will contain a modification of the Unicode Data Files (usually in the form of tables). Does that mean the license applies and all applications that use such Unicode libraries should carry the license? I've checked around, and it appears very few Unicode software do carry the license, though arguable most of those that didn't carry the license were from companies that were members of the Unicode consortium (do they get license exemption?). Some (f.i. Mozilla) are only "Liaison Members", and while their software do not carry the license (AFAICT), they do obviously rely on data derived from those data files. Is Mozilla in breach of the license? Should we carry the license in all apps that include any form of advanced Unicode support? (ie. are bound to rely on the Unicode data files) Or is there some form of broad exemption? (since very very few software out there carries the license)

    Read the article

  • Converting MSDN license to full, commercial license

    - by alex
    I had to throw a machine together in a bit of a hurry- to replace a machine that suddenly failed (no one had bothered to keep a "warm" backup) It has Windows Server 2008 and SQL 2008 The snag is, I installed them off our MSDN subscription media, due to me not having "licensed" software. I need to put this machine into production. We are in the process of buying the licenses from a MS reseller now. Is there a way to "convert" the MSDN license to production on both Windows Server and SQL?

    Read the article

  • Which opensource license to use to retain commercial rights for myself.

    - by Quigrim
    I am starting an opensource project. I want to allow the following: Free for noncommercial use, bins and source mods, like with the GPL, but I would like to retain commercial rights for myself, and provide another license for commercial use for customers who prefer that option. The number of licensing options seem a bit overwhelming. So my question is: Which opensource license should I use? Which commercial license should I use, if there are any standard ones available? Or should I come up with my own one here?

    Read the article

  • What exactly does the condition in the MIT license imply?

    - by Yannbane
    To quote the license itself: Copyright (C) [year] [copyright holders] Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. I am not exactly sure what the bold part implies. Lets say that I'm creating some library, and I license it under the MIT license. Someone decides to fork that library and to create a closed-source, commercial version. According to the license, he should be free to do that. However, what does he additionally need to do under those terms? Credit me as the creator? I guess the "above copyright notice" refers to the "Copyright (C) [..." part, but, wouldn't that list me as the author of his code (although I technically typed out the code)? And wouldn't including the "permission notice" in what is now his library practically license it under the same conditions that I licensed my own library in? Or, am I interpreting this incorrectly? Does that refer to my obligations to include the copyright and the permission notice?

    Read the article

  • Unable to deactivate windows xp by modifying the license in the registry

    - by ConorWalsh
    I need to deactivate windows xp so I can set it up with a new license. Every tutorial I've visited follow the same steps. (Example http://www.ehow.com/how_6665848_deactivate-windows-xp-pro.html) The tutorials state that the 00BE timer file located in the registry needs to be modified. It is found by going to the registry and navigating through "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE," "Software," "Microsoft," "WindowsNT," "CurrentVersion" and "WPAEvents." After the file is modified Windows should be deactivated. However it never does. The value changes but when I run the command to add a new license key it states "windows is already activated". I've done this before on other machines at it worked fine. I can't find any other methods to change the license in XP. Has anyone ever had this issue or knows of another way of deactivating windows?

    Read the article

  • InstallShield 2010 with license - no license for automatic build system (CI) as Windows service

    - by Gilad
    I really need help here. We are using CI build-process (Hudson) as an automated build system using Msbuild. The CI run in Apache Tomcat 6 that run under the credentials of a domain user (not a local Windows user ). Every time the CI try to build an InstallShield project (using isproj files) we get a license error message: " C:\Program Files\MSBuild\InstallShield\2010\InstallShield.targets(62,3): error : -7159: The product license has expired or has not yet been initialized. You must launch the IDE to configure the product license in order to proceed. C:\Program Files\MSBuild\InstallShield\2010\InstallShield.targets(62,3): error : Exception Caught". If I log in to the same machine with the same domain user credentials and build the InstallShield project there is a license and it is working well. Adding the user to the local Users group doesn't help (no license). Adding the user to the local Administrators group helps and it is working. We do not want the user to be in the local Administrators group - for various reasons. What do I need to do to make it work? Do I need to add permissions to the use? Help will be highly appreciated. Gilad

    Read the article

  • OpenSource License Validation [closed]

    - by Macmade
    I'm basically looking for some kind of FLOSS/OpenSource license validation service. I have special needs for some projects I'd like to open-source. I know there's actually tons of different FLOSS/OpenSource licenses, each one suitable for some specific purpose, and that creating a «new» one is not something recommended, usually. Anyway, even if I'm not an expert in the legal domain, I've got some experience with FLOSS/OpenSource, at a legal level, and it seems there's just no license covering my needs. I actually wrote the license terms I'd like to use, and contacted the FSF, asking them to review that license, as it seems (at least that's written on their website) they can do such review work. No answer. I tried repetitively, but no luck. So I'm currently looking for an alternate legal expertise about that specific license. I don't mind paying such a service, as long as I can be sure the license can be recognised as a FLOSS/OpenSource license. About the license, it's basically a mix of a BSD (third-clause) with a BOOST software license. The difference is about redistribution. Source code redistribution shall retain the copyright novices. The same applies for binary redistribution (like BSD), unless it's distributed as a library (more like BOOST). I hope this question is OK for programmers.stackexchange. I'm usually more active on StackOverflow, but it just seems the right place for such a question. So thank you for your time and enlightened advices. : )

    Read the article

  • License compatibility question

    - by Ivaylo Slavov
    I have a question regarding software licenses. I plan to put a license to a framework that I have written. My intention is that the license should be open, in order to maintain a community. Also I want to control when a new version is released and which changes will be included. The license should allow the framework to be used with commercial products, therefore respecting their own license. I have done some quick research and I decided to double license my work under the Apache License 2.0 (ASL) and Eclipse Public License (EPL). My point is that the EPL will provide me the ability to control the release cycle as well as the contributions to the project and the Apache license will take care for any patents a 3rd party might want to use in a derived work. Also both are open licenses. My question is related to the GLP and LGPL licenses. If I have the above licenses to my framework, will it be possible and legal, for someone to create a derived work of my framework, that is also a derived work of, or links a library that is under the LGPL license? Thanks in advance. EDIT: To be clear I will explain how I expect things to work. The framework will define some common API for certain functionalities as well as a Wrapper class that will invoke an implementation of that API. The Wrapper will be part of the framework, but it will internally call the actual implementation. This implementation should be in a separate library, and such libraries I would like to be developed and maintained by community. Surely the community will have to access the framework but I want to limit changes to the framework by the community but I want to provide freedom for any API implementation (a derived work of the framework). The framework will enable flexible configuration mechanisms that will tell which implementation of an API will be used.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >